Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GNOME 2.16 Released

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the upgrade dept.

Kethinov writes "The GNOME Project has just released version 2.16 of their popular *nix desktop environment. Among many snazzy new features, is lots of new eye candy, including an experimental compositer in Metacity, feature enhancements, usability improvements, and much, much more. Ars Technica has a review."

48 of 473 comments (clear)

  1. Sourceforge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ugh, who wants to use a desktop environment that has a stinky foot as its logo/mascot?

    1. Re:Sourceforge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you mean "The same poeple who are apt-get to run linux"

    2. Re:Sourceforge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I sense a bad joke about to emerge...

    3. Re:Sourceforge? by fimbulvetr · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm going to compile a list of these bad jokes.

    4. Re:Sourceforge? by creepynut · · Score: 3, Funny
      Bare feet do not smell.
      You obviously haven't met my feet.
  2. candy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bring on the eye candy! There'll be heaps of complainers who say its unnecessary... but sorry, its necessary to bring linux gradually mainstream.

    1. Re:candy by Jake73 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I basically agree with this, but think the developers should find some real designer talent to bring it about. For example, the screenshots are horrible. They took window shots, then faded the borders to white, then added a drop shadow. If you can't tell that this doesn't look right, you're in the wrong league.

      Don't fade borders if you're compositing a complete window. Faded borders are the graphical equivalent of an ellipsis.

      And definitely don't add a drop shadow to something you've already faded to white. It looks ridiculous.

    2. Re:candy by TractorBarry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The big trouble with focusing on eye candy is that GNOME has still got so much to do in terms of usability.

      For instance the support for consistent cut & paste, consistent support for keyboard shortcuts and a focus on providing functionality akin to the spirit of *NIXs "everything is a file" metaphor.

      For instance "all text should be accessible". In other words whereever I can see some text in GNOME I should be able to copy & paste that text (using the standard selection methods and Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Ins, Shift-Ins, menu items etc. etc.) This functionality should be available no matter whether the text is being displayed using a widget such as a list, button, status bar or text area etc. etc. Any application that displays a list should also allow me to save that list as a plain text file seperated by something like commas (anyone for CSV ?)

      And this functionality should be provided in the widget set itself so that simply by adding a widget to a GNOME application the features get built in without the developer having to realise why they're required or, if they've got any sense, eventually getting round to adding them after complaints from irate users.

      Any application that displays a list of files should allow me to double click on a file (or press "carriage return" or enter) and launch the default application associated with that file. Any application whatsoever. If I can't do this why is it showing me the file list anyway ? In exactly rhe same way I should always be able to select file(s) from that list and use copy & paste etc. Going back to my previous point I shuld also be able to save that file list in CSV format.

      Wherever there's a right mouse button menu this should also be available by pressing the right mouse button on the keyboard. Maybe a MAC keyboard doesn't have a "right mouse button" (don't kno never used n one ;) ? So what. They miss out, the rest of the world that does have one (i.e. the vast majority of us) gets to use it in the manner it was designed.

      On another note then for gods sake stop messing around with the right click menus. Using Nautilus you can select "paste" from the "edit" menu. But you can't right click in the file area and select "edit" > "paste" as doing so selects the nearest file to the cursor and removes ("greys out") the paste option.

      Personalised, "intelligent" menus are simply crap. Look at Microsoft Office or XP hiding things away etc. If there's data on the clipboard that can be processed by the application then paste should be available. Hiding the option is simply dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

      Personally I use GNOME because I use Ubuntu but I find it so bloody hard to do anything productive due to it missing so many simple, easy to implement, features that it usually send me swearing back to Windows to get things done. I'm so fed up with Nautilus that I now share my home folder on the network and do all my file management from Windows Explorer.

      So enough with the eye candy already. Get the cake properly baked before you start adding fancy icing.

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    3. Re:candy by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I stared at the first several screenshots trying to figure out what you were talking about, then I ran into the ones you mention. It made me wonder: why were some screenshots given this treatment, and others not?

      I think one visual design principle is this: if visual differences carry information, then pointless visual differences convey spurious information.

      The screenshots in question also seem to me to be a bit of a mixed metaphor. The drop shadow makes the things stand out from the page. This, I think, is an OK idea; it's not so much that the drop shadows tend to draw the eye to the screenshots (which they do), but it also conveys the messaage that these are concrete examples we are discussing; that is to say if we're looking at a screenshot of a graph, it's the window we are paying attention to, not the graph inside. By contrast, if there a graph that showed something like the lines of code in Gnome vs. time, you wouldn't expect it to get the drop shadow treatment.

      The mixed metaphor comes in this way: by fading the borders, the windows become less solid, yet they are still casting a shadow. The shadow appears to be cast by a sharp edge from a diffuse light source, but there is no sharp edge.

      What does it mean? It means nothing. Therefore it's poor communication because, unlike the drop shadows, it detracts from what is being said.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. Almost sounds like KDE 3... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know I'm going to get modded Troll for this, but looking over the feature list, it really sounds like it's gained a lot of KDE 3 features. The GNOME webbrowser can now spellcheck. (Big deal, Konqueror has done this for ages.) There's now a method for visually displaying disk use in GNOME. (Again, Konqueror has done this for ages.)

    You can now add items to the programs menu (this is NEW?!), you can now set file permissions on multiple files (again, this is NEW?!). All in all it sounds like stuff that should have been there for ages.

    And, as always, I can't help but wonder what options got removed and now are permentantly set to "sensible defaults" because, as everyone knows, customizability is "confusing". Really an underwhelming release based on the articles. (Yes, I did read them!)

    1. Re:Almost sounds like KDE 3... by cloricus · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're not a troll. You are stating the clear to see and the only problem with your post that I can find is that you don't think it is a good thing. Note Gnome had perms and the ability to add to the menus beforehand, just no where near as easily/well. Out side of the childish flame wars between kde and gnome the devs and community are getting on with life and taking features off each other while implementing new ones independently. Also moving into line with freedesktops specs. I think this is great for Linux desktop interoperability and really does allow people to use what they want with little hassle and not missing the features and functionality they really need.
       
      For the record I use Gnome, Enligthenment (DR17), and Blackbox and I refuse to even touch the peice of bloated crap that is KDE. :)

      --
      I ate your fish.
    2. Re:Almost sounds like KDE 3... by a_karbon_devel_005 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Default KDE 3 takes up less memory and uses less resources to run than GNOME currently. Run them side by side and see for yourself. KDE is not bloated in comparison to GNOME.

  4. Does it work on Windows 95? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This all sounds very exciting!

    I use Windows 95 and I'm finding it quite difficult to use. Can somebody please instruct me on how to install this GNOME on Windows 95?

    1. Re:Does it work on Windows 95? by i3iz · · Score: 5, Funny

      it's easy to install. Type Format C: at the command line. Then hit Y

  5. Re:Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me. by Hikaru79 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not a coincidence that Ubuntu's release cycle is the same as Gnome's -- six months. That's the defining feature of a new Ubuntu release: a new Gnome release. It was especially designed to be this way.

    So to answer your question, 2.16 will be in Edgy. And 2.18 will be in whatever comes after Edgy. And so on.

  6. GNOME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    GNOME is my favorite GUI. My dream system is Linux + ARM-based notebook built by Sony + GNOME + AOL client.

    Is there any chance that Sony will build and sell such a dream system?

    1. Re:GNOME by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Funny

      Built by Sony? That'd be a blast!

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
  7. But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I use gnome regularly, but am always momentarily confused by the file-save dialogue no matter how many times I see it. Gnome is very nice in a lot of ways, but I think in terms of decent interface design, it needs a lot of work.

    1. Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What is confusing?

      In its default look it doesn't show where it is going to save the document, but instead only the name of the very last folder (so if you have foo/images/ and bar/images/ you can't tell the difference), I'd call that pretty confusing, a click on "Browse for other folders" of course changes that, but fullpath somewhere visible would be quite usefull. Beside from that however I am very happy with the filedialog, simply, clean and effective.

    2. Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? by cloricus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was basically taken wholesale from the way macs save files...I hated it to start with though using my mac daily along with gnome I really wouldn't trade it. It's just got this easyness to it that sucks you in and hey...even my mother likes it/can use it.

      --
      I ate your fish.
    3. Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I do a save-as in gnome, I get a window that asks for a name and a folder. So far so good. Unfortunately, the "folder" selector is not a filesystem browser, but a list of "shortcuts". These are named after the last part of the path name - unfortunatly, this gives absolutely no insight as to where in the filesystem tree this folder is. They could show the full path name, or have a tooltip pop up if the mouse hovers over, or something. There are also some default shortcuts with ambiguous names: Desktop and Filesystem. The former, I happen to know through corresponds to ~/Desktop (and no, I don't use nautilus*, so it doesn't show up on my actual desktop). The latter is a mystery, but apparently I don't have permission to save there, wherever it is.

      Now, if I haven't configured a shortcut for the folder I want (and this is done manually - for some reason gnome doesn't just remember my most recent folders), I have to click on "browse for other folders". Since this is usually what I want to do anyways, it's a little tedious to have to go looking for it every time. Here it gets downright confusing. On the left is a pane that looks like the contents of a current working directory, but is actually just the same list of shortcuts I had just a moment ago decided I wasn't interested in; double clicking one of these entries does, however, navigate the real filesystem browser to that shortcut. The real list-view filesystem browser is on the right. With this I don't have much complaint, except that there isn't an obvious way to paste a path in from somewhere else.

      The lack of full pathname plagues other parts of gnome as well - consider the "save screenshot" window, invoked with [printscreen]. It remembers where I last saved a screenshot, but where is the full path? I have to select "other" from the dropdown list to find out where it is.

      *An observation: if you disable nautilus, gnome won't set up your wallpaper when you log in. You can still set it *manually* from the preferences/desktop background dialogue, but it will revert to default after login out and back in.

    4. Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? by say · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you are referring to the standard GTK File-open-dialog, try to press CTRL+H, as that will show hidden files. You could also right-click and choose "Show hidden files" from the pop-up menu.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    5. Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 4, Interesting
      [..]I have to wait 30 seconds for it to stat the entire freaking directory[..]
      This that's bad? Get this: over my many years of using Linux, my ~/ has quite a lot of dot files and entries in it. The file picker opens in my home dir, of course, so every bloody time I open it it stats all those hidden files. The punch line? It doesn't even show them! It's all for nothing!
      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    6. Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Funny

      "If you are referring to the standard GTK File-open-dialog, try to press CTRL+H, as that will show hidden files. You could also right-click and choose "Show hidden files" from the pop-up menu."

      Yeah, there was a moment of genius from the designers. "hahaah! we'll make viewing hidden files a HIDDEN feature!!!"

      --
      Deleted
    7. Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? by ThePhilips · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Documentation is what always sucks in Linux desktop. Check out for once M$Windows one.

      I loved GNOME 1.x for it was lean and clean - with most of the little bits been documented. I hated KDE1 precisely because it had only dummy automatically generated documentations. Many years have passed and situation reversed 180 degrees: KDE is documented and GNOME documentation is dumb-down to complete unusability level.

      I'm given myself a word to not use GNOME until its developers would not document all the magic behind .gtkrc and .gnomerc files - and how the two are interconnected. It was safe bet - no documentation in last 3-4 years emerged and I do not use GNOME anymore ;)

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  8. Damnit! by suso · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just emerging 2.14 now.

  9. Re:So? It still sucks. by dcapel · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know, I once heard a wise man tell a parable:

    I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.
    I immediately ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
    "Why shouldn't I?" he said.
    I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
    "Like what?"
    "Well ... are you religious or atheist?"
    "Religious."
    "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"
    "Christian."
    "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
    "Protestant."
    "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
    "Baptist."
    "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
    "Baptist Church of God."
    "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
    "Reformed Baptist Church of God."
    "Wow! Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed
    Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
    "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
    To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

    Incidentally, I use KDE ;)

    --
    DYWYPI?
  10. Not bad, except by subxero37 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I really wish they wouldn't use JPEGs for computer screenshots -- the lossy compression makes straight lines and text look terrible. PNG (or possibly GIF, depending on the number of colors used) is much more reasonable.

    Other than that, I don't understand why the --enable-compositor compile-time option isn't included by default. Logically, if the support is there, but the hardware isn't up-to-par or the X composite extention is not loaded, then the compositor just won't do anything. If everything is A-OK, then the compositor works as expected. For example, I compile support for my sound card directly into my kernel. One day, if I suddenly remove the sound card, my kernel will still work. So why not just turn stuff on by default?

    On the other hand, I can understand why some things aren't compiled in sometimes, due to size, but a compositor can't be more than, what, 100k of actual code? Anyway, I'm sure someone's gonna fire back at me.

  11. Re:C# App by telchine · · Score: 3, Funny

    >Is it just me, or does the default binding and replacement of standard apps with C# apps a concern?

    Not at all. I think this is a good strategy for GNU. First they embrace c#, after that they should extend it and then extinguish it!

  12. The important part: Mono by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Informative

    This release is very important because Mono is now a dependency! This single move pretty much moves Mono from an interesting project into mainstream OSS.

    As a C# fan, and knowing how much of a pain GTK was in C, I think this is a very good move. KDE has always had a better API, official Mono support with GTK reverses that! This could really clear up GNOME, and the Linux desktop generally.

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    1. Re:The important part: Mono by Almahtar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      GREAT! Now The most popular OSS desktop is tying itsself to a Microsoft controlled standard! Sweet! Let's persue that further!

      C++ with use of the STL and a few BOOST libraries is still more powerful than C# (let's see you do inline grammar parsing with C#!) - and it's not under the control of a corporation that's proven it can't be trusted.

    2. Re:The important part: Mono by benplaut · · Score: 5, Informative

      Regardless, it is still an accepted standard (ISO/IEC 23270)

    3. Re:The important part: Mono by SandmanWAIX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Despite your negativity, I myself (as a Windows lead developer) am really looking forward to developing for Linux. Our current client/server software is currently only compatible with Windows and MS SQL Server, however over the next couple of years I am hoping to slowly move our codebase to compile under Mono and support MySQL/PostgreSQL under Linux. We have already tendered a Mono alternative to a large company where a Microsoft solution wasnt an option. Mono is a good thing. It might not be perfect, but is definitely a step in the right direction and will help to bridge the gap between worlds.

  13. Re:So? It still sucks. by subxero37 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    KDE has many things going well for it. This'll sound weird, I'm sure, but I like Gnome better because it feels better. KDE has a weird feel to it that I can't get over. It's the same feeling I get when I use Opera, I don't quite like it.

    KDE also seems very thrown-together, and there are icons for almost every single menu item in almost every single menu -- it makes the entire desktop look extremely cluttered. Some lines and shapes (in some dialogs, some programs) are off by just a single pixel from where they should be, but because of that small error, it makes the desktop look slightly askew, and adds to the screen clutter appearance.

    Other than appearance and "feel" I have no problem using KDE.

  14. Re:C# App by Almahtar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think it'd be wise to mess with it at all. If there's one thing Microsoft is good at it's treachery, not technology. Rather than attempting to beat them at their own game (treachery), it'd be best to overcome them with merit (technology). In terms of ease-of-use and speed, C++ with STL and BOOSt, Ruby, or Python have C# whipped -- and they're totally free.

  15. Usability improvements on the application level by wysiwia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Usability improvements on the desktop are nice but when do people realize that usability improvements are desperately needed on the application level and only marginally on the desktop. What does it help if you have a perfect desktop but many of the applications one uses have a rather rubbish usability!

    Usability is always measured in a greater context, a context which goes far beyond the Gnome desktop but spans any desktop used. Just think how an American driver feels when he drives in England or vice versa. You might interrupt that's rather seldom the case but not with computer desktops. Almost each Gnome users uses a KDE application and even 60% use a Windows application (http://www.desktoplinux.com/cgi-bin/survey/survey .cgi?view=archive&id=0821200617613 at the bottom) and everybody knows the easyness of MacOSX.

    Sure application developers don't want to lose much time with usability they want to concentrate on functionality. So they can't follow multiple separate usability guidelines they simply don't have the time. Yet usability is a very important part in the acceptance of an application. To circumvent this, application developers should follow cross-desktop or cross-platform guidelines (http://wyoguide.sf.net/).

    Yet Gnome might still follow the MacOSX way sticking to there own perfect way and be happy with a rather insignificant market share. Or they help working on fighting off the first "Top inhibitors of Linux desktop adoption" (http://www.osdl.org/dtl/DTL_Survey_Report_Nov2005 .pdf).

    O. Wyss

    --
    See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
  16. Memo to text-porn writers: by patio11 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing says "sexy" like paragraph breaks.
        Its not hard. No, no, that's not what I meant.

    --
    Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
  17. Gnome! by SQLz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now with more KDE!

  18. Re:5 Year Old 3D features... by Nadir · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, we just have to wait for the AIGLX and DRI project to complete adding the required bits to the drivers. It's not GNOME's fault.

    --
    --
    The world is divided in two categories:
    those with a loaded gun and those who dig. You dig.
  19. Re:God help Nautilus by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nautilus is not for Power Users. Not even Konqueror which is designed for Power Users is used by them. Power Users use the text shell.

  20. Re:Technically great by NMerriam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tango is not just an icon set, it's (theoretically) a whole set of guidelines for interface design, including icons.

    I wouldn't waste time critiquing an icon set, but if Gnome really is planning on following these guidelines and the Tango crew really intend for them to be comprehensive and used by all the major open source interface developers, it would be a good idea for their flagship example to be as professional as possible. The lousy shadows were literally the first thing I noticed when I opened the page.

    In any case, it's just an icon! It's not even 3D. At 128x128 it's not going to matter that much. I think you're just being pedantic.

    I'm sure the Tango folks will be thrilled to learn you really don't care about any of their work. They built a whole group, an extensive web site and extensive guidelines along with the hundreds of icons in the set, I should think they care about the work they're doing and want it to be more than just "good enough". If they want to produce results that are comparable to professional software, then they have to hold themselves to the same pedantic standard that professionals do. It's like building a house and not having the corners be square -- one of the subtle differences that separates most $100k homes from most $500k homes. The average person doesn't consciously notice all the little fit and finish details as they walk throught the house, but they do recognize that there is a difference in quality.

    Your professional help would be greatly appreciated if you feel inclined.

    These comments are my professional help, I charge for this stuff in real life. Shadows have shapes that relate to the shape of the object. A sphere, a file folder, and a box don't all produce the same shadow shape when illuminated. Shadows are darker at the center and where they meet the object, and then lose density and definition as they reach the outside edges. You can make a pretty good flat shadow by just shading two sides of an icon, but if you want to do a projected floor shadow then you have to represent the silhouette of the object as transformed through space.

    Doing a bad floor shadow is more work for worse results than doing a flat shadow. So my professional advice would be that if they are low on time, they should just do flat shadows, but if they want to spend the time, they should think more about how to achieve good projected shadows.

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  21. New GNOME, even more easier! by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTFA : "Menu editing just got even more easier."

    Woot! Sounds like a lot! I also heard it was even more betterly eye-candier!

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  22. Re:5 Year Old 3D features... by Stalyn · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's not really true, considering the nvidia open source drivers do not even support 3d acceleration. The ati open source drivers are alot further along but only support older cards.

    If you have a newer card or a nvidia card, the only option is XGL/compiz which has the same effects (and more) than the new Metacity. If you still want to use Metacity you will have to wait until Nvidia/ATI releases their drivers with texture from pixmap support which could be 6 months to a year from now. XGL has tfp already built into its server which allows one to use accelerated 3d effects even if their driver does not support it.

    Also I should note that one could use compiz with AIGLX (not sure if you can right out of the box or requires a patch).

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
  23. Yet STILL... by DeathAndTaxes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    STILL we gnome faithful are saddled with having only one desktop picture for all workspaces. This became ridiculous at gnome 2.10, IMO. Gnome devs still say they are all for the spatial paradigm (which I like, btw), yet they miss the opportunity to use different desktop pics for each workspace, which would make each workspace...different (wait for it) spatially.

    (I still use gnome every day.) ;-)

  24. Ubuntu by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hear Ubuntu researchers are hard at work trying find the most depressing shades of brown to use in the default themes for their Gnome 2.16 based release.

  25. Here's another problem with Gnome branding by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tomboy, Notes application
    Alacarte, Menu Editor
    Baobab, Disk usage analyzer
    Totem, Video player

    WTF???

    Why not call the Notes application "Gnome Notes", the menu editor "Gnome Menu Editor", the Disk usage analyzer "Gnome Disk Usage Analyzer" and the video player, you've guessed it, "Gnome Video Player".
    I know developers like to give their applications noteworthy and unique names, but to a user this is only confusing and unnecessary. Especially considering all these are part of Gnome and will most likely not be used outside the Gnome environment.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Here's another problem with Gnome branding by Medieval_Gnome · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not quite that bad. When accessing these programs from the menu they *do* have the simple names you were hoping for.

      Totem is 'Movie Player'
      Baobab is 'Disk Usage Analyzer'
      Alacarte seems to be 'Menu Layout', although Ubuntu might have changed something here.
      Tomboy is unfortunately 'Tomboy notes'

      So overall they've managed to use fairly clear and simple names for these programs, much as you were hoping for.

      --

      :wq

    2. Re:Here's another problem with Gnome branding by g2devi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's absolutely necessary.

      Think about it. If you run GNOME on a distro that uses the default GNOME applications, you'll see this on your menu item:

      Epiphany Web Browser

      but if you run Ubuntu, you'll see:

      Firefox Web Browser

      These are *different* apps with different features and limitations so they should not be given the same name (i.e. GNOME Web Browser) even if the naming convention is consistent within a distribution. By force-fitting the branding, you're eliminating the possibility that GNOME can change its mind about web browsers and you're making it difficult to support GNOME. And it confuses novices who buy "GNOME for dummies" books and expect one thing to work and has a different result because they're getting another app.

      Let's extend this a bit further. Suppose I want to run Firefox, Epiphany, Opera, and Konqueror. My menu would look like:

      Epiphany Web Browser
      Firefox Web Browser
      Opera Web Browser
      Konqueror Web Browser

      All these options are available and even a new user on my machine that only knew one of these browsers would see that they are all web browsers.

      What's wrong with unique names anyway? Is Excel any more descriptive than iLife or OpenOffice? None make sense, but all are well known. People like unique names since they're easy to remember. And for people who don't know what these apps mean, the old "OpenOffice Word Processor"/"OpenOffice Spreadsheet"/... menu items should give them all the information they need to know.